Moving to a third-party OS you have no control over is never smart. If history should teach us anything it's that those who give up control of their platform end up dead by the side of the road somewhere. The only right option is to man up and whip the company into shape.
I strongly suspect this was the Symbian side of the company trying to shut the obvious Linux path down. I was always suspicious of how the N*** series never developed into a proper smartphone. Qt was probably a logical choice and development direction to go in especially for third parties, but surely it should have been obvious to them far earlier. What then happened with Symbian? We got a half-arsed port of Qt that never amounted to anything. No one was strong enough to stand up to Symbian and the rest descended into a political mess.
The best counter you can have against such a manager (especially one who consistently screws up) is to make sure you get a paper trail and project management chart all set - and get his signature on it!
Heh. Many managers become very skilled at trying to avoid being nailed down by paper trails. One of the tactics is to try and get things done by phone where it's your word against theirs and they try and convince you that certain things have been agreed when you know fine well they haven't. I've had experience of this recently, and I've become equally adept at not answering the phone to her and only agreeing things via a collaboration system that copies in all interested parties (that's where e-mail is good)! She tries to avoid replying to it and gets visibly frustrated, but she can't get away from it.
How is H.264 closed? The spec is available for any one to buy and implement.
That's not a standard, and certainly not something purporting to be a standard for web video.
If H.264 is "closed" than so can be said for the vast majority of ISO standards.
If a lot of them are like that, and they are, then yes. They're designed to give the appearance of something everyone can implement with a lot of fences put up by members of the club who'd rather there wasn't too much competition.
H.264 on the other hand was developed by the ISO standards board and a whole host of companies in it's development.
Yer..... A whole host of companies who are going to charge you royalty payments and put up a patent fence for various things and who will use h.264 as a barrier to entry for any annoying wannabe new competitor, like these little clubs are always designed to do. Real 'standards' don't do that, however.
Like all ISO standards one could get access to the full spec.
Well, the spec that's implemented by the companies that are part of the club, anyway. Anything else is rather useless. You do get that point, right?
While you're locking down your home network with the rock solid security system that is NAT, I'd like to offer you a chance to put the same level of security on your home.
Unfortunately your little joke falls over because NAT is only one part of this thing called a firewall - i.e. houses have these things called doors and windows that can be locked. However, shock, horror, even though people are quite comfortable with their locks they still don't want anyone being able to look inside. That's why most people have curtains, or blinds, and they don't leave their house unlocked because they have them. Funny that.
Because not every device needs a public IP address on a private network and public devices on the internet are not entitled to see any of my IP addresses from my devices, no matter how firewalled they are.
In addition, I don't want to have to piggy-back on to an ISP for an available public IP address when I can easily serve that with an internal network device I know will at least work most of the time. No one is thinking through the practical considerations and the network issues we have today.
No actually, it doesn't, but someone above wanted to equate guillotines with guns. Same difference.
Ah, that asinine old argument. As if objects give a shit what they're designed to do. Dozens of everyday objects are better murder weapons than a gun, but a gun is meant to kill people, so it's eeeevil!
Ahhhh. That old chestnut! Trying to tell us that a gun is just an ordinary everyday object like anything else. Like I said, I don't see politicians being murdered at meetings with a pair of kitchen scissors. I don't think you're going to get a much better murder weapon, especially as it's only use is for killing.
Well it is an everyday object if you see guns in widespread supply, and so are murder and shootings funnily enough.
The discussion was about availability of firearms per capita.
Indeed. It is about supply. For every 'legal' gun in the US you've probably got at least one illegal one because of the increased supply and market that surrounds them.
The culture of the Swiss is what prevents their use in crimes, which leads to the argument that guns inherently are not the cause of shootings.
It's not the culture of the Swiss at all. Whichever way you look at it these guns are restricted because there is not a proliferation of supply as there is in the US. The only cultural difference is that the Swiss don't see guns around very often and so are likely to view things differently. It just lends more weight to my argument.
No matter how anyone cuts this the simple fact is that a steady supply of a wide variety of guns to ordinary people which also in turn feeds an illegal market makes it a hell of a lot more likely that you'll get shootings.
Are you even on it? Holy cow. You Brits have been trained to believe that the government can protect you from anything, I guess. I feel sorry for you. Fact is, we both need defense from our respective governments. Whether that be political or physical only time will tell.
....and yet I don't see children getting shot in schools or politicians being gunned down en masse in public. Go figure.
Now, regarding a home invasion (or any other situation where you are being threatened by another) you have to face a few more facts. I shouldn't need to spell this out, but you sound like someone who has never faced a violent situation.
I've faced violent sitiuations very rarely because violence is less well accepted. The one thing you can't do is add the ability to create more violence to violence and expect you to be making yourself safer. All that happens is that things get more violent. It's a curious phenomenon. That's how the First World War started.
Here's the thing: a cop can rarely defend you from the bad guys, unless he happens to be right there when the bad guy pulls a gun on you.
Hears the kicker. The bad guys around here are less likely to be able to pull again because it isn't acceptable for citizens to carry them. Guns being in easy supply merely makes it easier for a criminal to have one, and have one that can do more damage than what you have.
Yeah, I don't think so. Every person in the US has a knife. Most have a meat-cleaver. A whole bunch have axes and chainsaws.
It's funny. I don't see many politicians in public places being killed with knives, meat cleavers or axes and chainsaws.
Hell, pretty much everyone has a 1-or-more-tonne device capable of moving at 100+ miles per hour. But you think the addition of guillotines would be the tipping point? Right. Go on, pull the other one.
Yes they do, and they use them to get from A to B. There are a lot of dangerous things people have access to, but funnily enough they aren't designed completely for the purpose of killing someone.
You are implying that just owning a gun (or guillotine) automatically turns you into a crazed murderer, this is not the case in fact every year of all the people in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a License to Carry Firearms only 0.1% of them commit any felony or misdemeanor. You would be hard pressed to find crime rates lower than that and all of these people own guns and most carry them frequently.
The problem with this logic is that it allows guns to be supplied acceptably, and when you have an increase in the supply of weapons held legally you also have an increase in the supply of weapons held illegally and used nefariously.
And yet all adult male Swiss have a full-automatic military weapons at their homes, given to them by their government and they still manage a lower murder rate that the US.
The supply of those guns is strictly controlled as part of National Service. Not exactly the same thing.
Not really. The elephant in the living room is the difference in ethnic makeup between the countries you are comparing.
There is no ethnic elephant. People who get shot are people. Now, there might be other factors such as poverty and a greater chance of crime in the rest of Sweden but that doesn't alter the greater murder rate in the US.
Higher murder rate in US? Sure, we also have more general crime and much of our youth are little shits that need to be spanked and properly raised.
Murder is easier and more accepted. Getting rid of that attitude would help.
Semi-auto rifles and pistols are also fun, but if you weren't so anti gun you would know that.
A gun only has one purpose, no matter how much fun they might be.
Oh yeah, most gun crime (as opposed to lawful killing using a gun) is committed by CRIMINALS WHO CANNOT LEGALLY POSSES A FIREARM!!!
The problem is that the more 'legally' possessed guns you have the greater the number of illegal ones as well because of greater supply. Where do you hide a needle? In amongst a lot of other needles.
.....the shooting at a high school in omaha would have still happened because it was a cop's weapon used(which we would not ban I bet)
The cops carry guns freely because everyone else does. In countries that don't have widespread gun use guns are only carried by armed units that are called out specifically, and so, that shooting would not have occurred because the opportunity to obtain that gun wouldn't have been there.
So because this guy gives us a really silly line graph that professes to tell us that the largely 'white' US cities are on a par with European cities, thus the US is just as safe as Europe and so that somehow tells us that US gun culture isn't a cause of higher violent crime?
If everyone was willing to pull the trigger every time he saw someone he hated, human society wouldn't be possible.
I didn't say that, but it makes it more likely that it will happen. I meet with my local politician at local meetings all the time but I've never seen people getting badly injured and killed en masse like this.
Since there are some who are willing to pull the trigger whenever they see someone they hate, others need to be able to oppose them, and being armed and capable with the weapon is useful for that purpose.
What you don't get is that carrying a gun merely makes it almost certain that someone who would like to pull the trigger first will have one as well. It doesn't make you safer.
Why is the risk of being in a deadly accident a reasonable risk, but the risk of being killed (or watching someone else killed) because you don't have a weapon or training to use it always acceptable?
A gun is a weapon for killing people. A car isn't. What you've got there is so arse backwards I don't know what else to say to you. A lot of people get killed by falling down stairs. Are stairs unacceptable?
Oh, and again, you don't get killed because you don't have a weapon. You get killed because you are allowed to carry a gun and as such the other guy has easy access to a gun and he is willing to shoot first. Carrying a gun isn't a defence.
....and here we get a perfect insight into why these things happens with the American psyche. When no one trusts anyone else, and you don't have laws to give people confidence in that trust, all you're left with is a place where everyone mistrusts everyone else and killing is inevitable. As Dirty Harry said: "You execute your neighbour because he pisses on your lawn". Mistrust simply breeds in that kind of environment.
Incidentally, it's why a lot of the rest of the world hates Americans, and I don't just mean Muslims when I say that.
....whatever "safe" part of the world you live in, I strongly urge you to stay there.
I certainly will, because I don't have any problems with people being shot where I live and a murder is a major event that shocks everyone.
No. A handgun is the first weapon that gives a 90pound woman a chance against a 200 pound man.
You've answered at least part of this for yourself.
A bow or crossbow are both far far older and let you kill at a distance - and often silently.
Strange that you don't see people carrying bows as gun replacements. Anywhere.
There are plenty of knifings in this country - a gun may make it easier, but if someone wants to kill you, they will.
It's strange that multiple people don't get stabbed to death in a roomful of other people. Making killing easier makes it more likely that it will happen. Strange that.
Quit lying. Do you have any idea how many people are beaten to death, clubbed to death, macheted to death, burned to death, stabbed to death, choked to death, poisoned to death, drowned, run down with cars, and so on? Google for multiple homicides in Asia that involve knives?
The problem with this warped little piece of logic is that countries that have gun controls still have knife crime, and they tend to have less of it bizarrely. Countries that allow guns in society have a lot more knife crime plus a hell of a lot of gun crime and murders as a result because killing becomes easier and more accepted.
Stop lying to yourself to justify carrying a gun around on you that gives you some warped sense of security. Your country has a muder rate well in excess of any country that doesn't control guns.
Slashdot Mirror
Moving to a third-party OS you have no control over is never smart. If history should teach us anything it's that those who give up control of their platform end up dead by the side of the road somewhere. The only right option is to man up and whip the company into shape.
I strongly suspect this was the Symbian side of the company trying to shut the obvious Linux path down. I was always suspicious of how the N*** series never developed into a proper smartphone. Qt was probably a logical choice and development direction to go in especially for third parties, but surely it should have been obvious to them far earlier. What then happened with Symbian? We got a half-arsed port of Qt that never amounted to anything. No one was strong enough to stand up to Symbian and the rest descended into a political mess.
No, it doesn't.
The best counter you can have against such a manager (especially one who consistently screws up) is to make sure you get a paper trail and project management chart all set - and get his signature on it!
Heh. Many managers become very skilled at trying to avoid being nailed down by paper trails. One of the tactics is to try and get things done by phone where it's your word against theirs and they try and convince you that certain things have been agreed when you know fine well they haven't. I've had experience of this recently, and I've become equally adept at not answering the phone to her and only agreeing things via a collaboration system that copies in all interested parties (that's where e-mail is good)! She tries to avoid replying to it and gets visibly frustrated, but she can't get away from it.
How is H.264 closed? The spec is available for any one to buy and implement.
That's not a standard, and certainly not something purporting to be a standard for web video.
If H.264 is "closed" than so can be said for the vast majority of ISO standards.
If a lot of them are like that, and they are, then yes. They're designed to give the appearance of something everyone can implement with a lot of fences put up by members of the club who'd rather there wasn't too much competition.
H.264 on the other hand was developed by the ISO standards board and a whole host of companies in it's development.
Yer..... A whole host of companies who are going to charge you royalty payments and put up a patent fence for various things and who will use h.264 as a barrier to entry for any annoying wannabe new competitor, like these little clubs are always designed to do. Real 'standards' don't do that, however.
Like all ISO standards one could get access to the full spec.
Well, the spec that's implemented by the companies that are part of the club, anyway. Anything else is rather useless. You do get that point, right?
Secondly, H.264 is no more "closed" than the supposed "open" standards such as ISO C++ with statements like:
I fail to understand the comparison, unless my C++ program is going to be royalty encumbered because I've used it?
I can't believe people are being this thick after all the dicussion on the matter.
While you're locking down your home network with the rock solid security system that is NAT, I'd like to offer you a chance to put the same level of security on your home.
Unfortunately your little joke falls over because NAT is only one part of this thing called a firewall - i.e. houses have these things called doors and windows that can be locked. However, shock, horror, even though people are quite comfortable with their locks they still don't want anyone being able to look inside. That's why most people have curtains, or blinds, and they don't leave their house unlocked because they have them. Funny that.
Um, why?
Because not every device needs a public IP address on a private network and public devices on the internet are not entitled to see any of my IP addresses from my devices, no matter how firewalled they are.
In addition, I don't want to have to piggy-back on to an ISP for an available public IP address when I can easily serve that with an internal network device I know will at least work most of the time. No one is thinking through the practical considerations and the network issues we have today.
Right, but it happens every day with guillotines.
No actually, it doesn't, but someone above wanted to equate guillotines with guns. Same difference.
Ah, that asinine old argument. As if objects give a shit what they're designed to do. Dozens of everyday objects are better murder weapons than a gun, but a gun is meant to kill people, so it's eeeevil!
Ahhhh. That old chestnut! Trying to tell us that a gun is just an ordinary everyday object like anything else. Like I said, I don't see politicians being murdered at meetings with a pair of kitchen scissors. I don't think you're going to get a much better murder weapon, especially as it's only use is for killing.
Well it is an everyday object if you see guns in widespread supply, and so are murder and shootings funnily enough.
The discussion was about availability of firearms per capita.
Indeed. It is about supply. For every 'legal' gun in the US you've probably got at least one illegal one because of the increased supply and market that surrounds them.
The culture of the Swiss is what prevents their use in crimes, which leads to the argument that guns inherently are not the cause of shootings.
It's not the culture of the Swiss at all. Whichever way you look at it these guns are restricted because there is not a proliferation of supply as there is in the US. The only cultural difference is that the Swiss don't see guns around very often and so are likely to view things differently. It just lends more weight to my argument.
No matter how anyone cuts this the simple fact is that a steady supply of a wide variety of guns to ordinary people which also in turn feeds an illegal market makes it a hell of a lot more likely that you'll get shootings.
Are you even on it? Holy cow. You Brits have been trained to believe that the government can protect you from anything, I guess. I feel sorry for you. Fact is, we both need defense from our respective governments. Whether that be political or physical only time will tell.
....and yet I don't see children getting shot in schools or politicians being gunned down en masse in public. Go figure.
Now, regarding a home invasion (or any other situation where you are being threatened by another) you have to face a few more facts. I shouldn't need to spell this out, but you sound like someone who has never faced a violent situation.
I've faced violent sitiuations very rarely because violence is less well accepted. The one thing you can't do is add the ability to create more violence to violence and expect you to be making yourself safer. All that happens is that things get more violent. It's a curious phenomenon. That's how the First World War started.
Here's the thing: a cop can rarely defend you from the bad guys, unless he happens to be right there when the bad guy pulls a gun on you.
Hears the kicker. The bad guys around here are less likely to be able to pull again because it isn't acceptable for citizens to carry them. Guns being in easy supply merely makes it easier for a criminal to have one, and have one that can do more damage than what you have.
It happens that congresswoman supports gun rights so each and every anti-gun comment from loserboys here are null and void.
Well no. In fact, the irony is only made sharper.
Yeah, I don't think so. Every person in the US has a knife. Most have a meat-cleaver. A whole bunch have axes and chainsaws.
It's funny. I don't see many politicians in public places being killed with knives, meat cleavers or axes and chainsaws.
Hell, pretty much everyone has a 1-or-more-tonne device capable of moving at 100+ miles per hour. But you think the addition of guillotines would be the tipping point? Right. Go on, pull the other one.
Yes they do, and they use them to get from A to B. There are a lot of dangerous things people have access to, but funnily enough they aren't designed completely for the purpose of killing someone.
You are implying that just owning a gun (or guillotine) automatically turns you into a crazed murderer, this is not the case in fact every year of all the people in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a License to Carry Firearms only 0.1% of them commit any felony or misdemeanor. You would be hard pressed to find crime rates lower than that and all of these people own guns and most carry them frequently.
The problem with this logic is that it allows guns to be supplied acceptably, and when you have an increase in the supply of weapons held legally you also have an increase in the supply of weapons held illegally and used nefariously.
And yet all adult male Swiss have a full-automatic military weapons at their homes, given to them by their government and they still manage a lower murder rate that the US.
The supply of those guns is strictly controlled as part of National Service. Not exactly the same thing.
Not really. The elephant in the living room is the difference in ethnic makeup between the countries you are comparing.
There is no ethnic elephant. People who get shot are people. Now, there might be other factors such as poverty and a greater chance of crime in the rest of Sweden but that doesn't alter the greater murder rate in the US.
Higher murder rate in US? Sure, we also have more general crime and much of our youth are little shits that need to be spanked and properly raised.
Murder is easier and more accepted. Getting rid of that attitude would help.
Semi-auto rifles and pistols are also fun, but if you weren't so anti gun you would know that.
A gun only has one purpose, no matter how much fun they might be.
Oh yeah, most gun crime (as opposed to lawful killing using a gun) is committed by CRIMINALS WHO CANNOT LEGALLY POSSES A FIREARM!!!
The problem is that the more 'legally' possessed guns you have the greater the number of illegal ones as well because of greater supply. Where do you hide a needle? In amongst a lot of other needles.
.....the shooting at a high school in omaha would have still happened because it was a cop's weapon used(which we would not ban I bet)
The cops carry guns freely because everyone else does. In countries that don't have widespread gun use guns are only carried by armed units that are called out specifically, and so, that shooting would not have occurred because the opportunity to obtain that gun wouldn't have been there.
That's the flaw in using this logic.
So because this guy gives us a really silly line graph that professes to tell us that the largely 'white' US cities are on a par with European cities, thus the US is just as safe as Europe and so that somehow tells us that US gun culture isn't a cause of higher violent crime?
Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrright.
If everyone was willing to pull the trigger every time he saw someone he hated, human society wouldn't be possible.
I didn't say that, but it makes it more likely that it will happen. I meet with my local politician at local meetings all the time but I've never seen people getting badly injured and killed en masse like this.
Since there are some who are willing to pull the trigger whenever they see someone they hate, others need to be able to oppose them, and being armed and capable with the weapon is useful for that purpose.
What you don't get is that carrying a gun merely makes it almost certain that someone who would like to pull the trigger first will have one as well. It doesn't make you safer.
Why is the risk of being in a deadly accident a reasonable risk, but the risk of being killed (or watching someone else killed) because you don't have a weapon or training to use it always acceptable?
A gun is a weapon for killing people. A car isn't. What you've got there is so arse backwards I don't know what else to say to you. A lot of people get killed by falling down stairs. Are stairs unacceptable?
Oh, and again, you don't get killed because you don't have a weapon. You get killed because you are allowed to carry a gun and as such the other guy has easy access to a gun and he is willing to shoot first. Carrying a gun isn't a defence.
All I can say is, you're far too trusting...
....and here we get a perfect insight into why these things happens with the American psyche. When no one trusts anyone else, and you don't have laws to give people confidence in that trust, all you're left with is a place where everyone mistrusts everyone else and killing is inevitable. As Dirty Harry said: "You execute your neighbour because he pisses on your lawn". Mistrust simply breeds in that kind of environment.
Incidentally, it's why a lot of the rest of the world hates Americans, and I don't just mean Muslims when I say that.
....whatever "safe" part of the world you live in, I strongly urge you to stay there.
I certainly will, because I don't have any problems with people being shot where I live and a murder is a major event that shocks everyone.
No. A handgun is the first weapon that gives a 90pound woman a chance against a 200 pound man.
You've answered at least part of this for yourself.
A bow or crossbow are both far far older and let you kill at a distance - and often silently.
Strange that you don't see people carrying bows as gun replacements. Anywhere.
There are plenty of knifings in this country - a gun may make it easier, but if someone wants to kill you, they will.
It's strange that multiple people don't get stabbed to death in a roomful of other people. Making killing easier makes it more likely that it will happen. Strange that.
Quit lying. Do you have any idea how many people are beaten to death, clubbed to death, macheted to death, burned to death, stabbed to death, choked to death, poisoned to death, drowned, run down with cars, and so on? Google for multiple homicides in Asia that involve knives?
The problem with this warped little piece of logic is that countries that have gun controls still have knife crime, and they tend to have less of it bizarrely. Countries that allow guns in society have a lot more knife crime plus a hell of a lot of gun crime and murders as a result because killing becomes easier and more accepted.
Stop lying to yourself to justify carrying a gun around on you that gives you some warped sense of security. Your country has a muder rate well in excess of any country that doesn't control guns.
....and yet, you don't hear of people being killed by them when someone couldn't find themselves a gun. Go figure.